Hello, I'm DinodudeEpic, self-declared lord of spam, and mutualist. I call my political/economic beliefs 'Liberal Socialism', which is basically a combination of mutualist socialism and classical liberalism. (with welfare.)
Welcome. It is somewhat ironic that the title of the thread is "For Liberty and Equality" and then proposed is "mutual socialism and classinc liberalism" which in practice typically violate both liberty and equality.
What? So we should go back to the days when blacks were discrimianted by evil corporations? Guess who was responsible for the Civil Rights Act??? LIBERALS. That's equality, baby. And liberty? Neocons won't even allow the liberty for a woman to kill HER OWN FETUS. Jebus.
Well, I have never seen mutualism enacted in a massive scale. Also, Classical Liberalism did lead to more freedoms in the case of America, France, and pretty much all of Europe before social democracy and socialism (Not the 'socialism' that was practiced by the USSR) came in. I'm not referring to the wetdream that libertarians droll over, I mean actual classical liberals including Adam Smith, who actually warned about monopolies and wanted progressive taxation, Whigs, Radicals, and the such. Mutualist Socialism is basically free market socialism where the workers control the means of production via cooperatives that compete in the free market. In total, I want the government to only regulate the economy to prevent monopolies and provide safety for the people/environment. I also think it should provide welfare to all citizens who want the welfare. (Which is different then shoving it down people's throats.)
As a card carrying Libertarian I also support equality of opportunity but do not support classical socialism (redistribution of wealth) which is theft violating the Right of Property. For example I support the Right of every individual to provide for their own healthcare and they should have equality of access but they do not have a right to expect someone else pay for it. Liberals do address some social issues that we should all support but as soon as they insist on violating the Rights of the Individual then we find a difference in political perspectives. I have the same problem with many conservatives that would use the law to impose discrimination for the purposes of social engineering, often based upon religious dogma, such as their opposition to same-sex marriage.
Actually, more Democrats than Republicans were against the Civil Rights Acts of 1964. So much for that LIBERALS DID IT theory, huh? But welcome to the forum, anyway. Look forward to clearing up more misconceptions in the future.
I'm afraid this history major can't let Smartmouthwoman's (latest) skewing of the facts and of history slide by without comment. She speaks as if the Democratic Party of the 1960s was consistently the party of liberalism. On the contrary, the Democratic Party of that era was very different from the Democratic Party of this era in a very important way: back then, the Democrats included the U.S. South and its ultra-right politics as one part of their broad coalition. The Democrats had historically been the party of slavery the Confederacy, and that reactionary wing remained part of the Democratic Party up to the 1970s and '80s to a degree. The passage of the Civil Rights Act, in fact, was the beginning of the end of the "Dixiecrat" wing of the Democratic Party. It marked a historic rejection by the party of its long history of paying its most fundamental allegiances to the Deep South. Just 15 years previous, when Democratic President Harry Truman had tried to get similar measures passed on his watch, he had been thwarted by the Dixiecrats. But now the Dixiecrats could not prevail, even in their own party. The Dixiecrats were the Democrats who voted against the Civil Rights Act. The Northern Democrats, like the Republicans (more broadly the party of the North up to that point), supported the bill. The Republican presidential candidate that year, by contrast, made his opposition to the Civil Rights Act central to his campaign. Such marked the birth of the Republicans' Southern Strategy, which has since transformed them from the party of the North into the party of the South. In all honesty, during the period between the 1930s and the 1970s, it was actually fairly difficult to tell which party was more liberal and which was more conservative in an overall sense. During that particular period, the Democrats overall tended to favor more left wing economic policies, but the Republicans were more supportive of social liberalism than the Democrats. Today it is comparatively easy to tell which party is more liberal and which is more conservative. Today few politicians actually oppose the Civil Rights Act, at least openly. But I believe all those that still do belong to the Republican Party now. (e.g. Ron Paul) Anyhow, welcome DinodudeEpic!
Why not? The elites have been thieving from everybody else since the Constitutional Convention and George Washington conducted his first 'survey' of Virginia.
I'll take my personal experience combined with statistics over your history books' spin, polly. The Democrats haven't changed a whisker since 1964, they've just become craftier at their 'keep 'em down and keep 'em needy' philosophy toward blacks. The spirit of Robert Byrd is alive and well in the DNC.
...So if indeed the Democrats are still focused on keeping black people down, I wonder how you explain the current U.S. president. The presidency is the most powerful single office in the country. Or, for that matter, I wonder how you explain the fact that all members of the Congressional Black Caucus save for one are Democrats. It would seem that today the Republican Party clearly has a much more difficult time getting African Americans to represent them.
It is a natural right. John Locke origonaly stated that the three natural rights were life, liberty, and property. The Constitution tweeked it a bit to state life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness.
So what john locke says goes and that wasn't the constitution -- it was the declaration of independence
